This dispute, which is not the first of its kind, does not limit its effects to financial claims between doctors and insurance entities and the determination of contractual liability; rather, it extends to the insured who have paid insurance premiums in exchange for receiving agreed-upon medical services. They are the party most affected by the conflict, even though they are not a party to it and have no power to resolve it, which necessitates that they should not bear its health and financial consequences.
The importance of the issue is highlighted by the legal status of the right to health and its connection to the right to life and human dignity. Article (25) of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulated the right of every person to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being, including medical care. Article (12) of the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights also recognized the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
At the national level, although there is no explicit provision in the Jordanian Constitution establishing the right to health as an independent right, the principles contained in Article (6), particularly equal opportunity, the guarantee of tranquility, and the protection of the most vulnerable groups, form a general constitutional foundation that supports protecting individuals from the effects of disputes related to health services, especially those unable to bear treatment costs directly.
Legally, the Medical Association has the right to defend the professional and financial interests of its members and to demand respect for concluded agreements, while insurance companies enjoy contractual rights that must be respected, and they bear duties that vary according to the nature of the contracts they are bound by. On this basis, these entities must fulfill their financial obligations toward medical service providers, ensuring the continuity of insurance coverage and protecting the rights of the insured.
Regarding the measures taken to deal with the dispute, the Association has allowed patients to be treated in exchange for paying fees in cash and obtaining receipts. However, this measure, even with the possibility of recovering the amounts later according to insurance terms, may not achieve the primary goal of insurance coverage, which is to alleviate financial burdens during illness. Furthermore, while exempting emergency cases and intensive care is important, it may not provide sufficient protection for those with chronic illnesses and those who require regular treatment that cannot be delayed.
In light of these repercussions, and while the judiciary remains the competent authority to adjudicate disputes, the nature of the conflict calls for prioritizing an urgent amicable settlement. Judicial proceedings, while guaranteeing the protection of rights, may not provide the immediate solutions required by health services due to the time they may take. Hence, the importance of resolving the dispute amicably emerges, without prejudice to any party's right to resort to the competent courts.
To achieve this goal, the importance of the intervention of the Ministry of Health and the Central Bank of Jordan, each within its legal jurisdiction, becomes clear to bridge the gaps and reach a fair settlement that preserves the professional rights of doctors and the legitimate interests of insurance companies, and safeguards the rights of the insured. There is also a need for temporary arrangements that ensure the continuity of medical services throughout the duration of the dispute, without burdening patients with costs that exceed their contractual obligations.
The success of resolving this dispute is not measured by the gains achieved by any party, but by the extent to which a balanced settlement is reached that preserves professional and contractual rights and prevents citizens from bearing the consequences of the conflict. Financial rights can be settled by agreement or by the judiciary, but health damages resulting from delayed treatment may be irreparable, which requires that human health and safety remain a priority when settling any professional or contractual dispute.
* Professor of Constitutional Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Jordan
